Indeed.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by The Devil Inside, Jan 28, 2006.

  1. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,213
    <benja> A worldwide survey was conducted by the UN. The only question
    asked was:"Would you please give your honest opinion about solutions to the
    food shortage in the rest of the world?"
    <benja> The survey was a huge failure...
    <benja> In Africa they didn't know what "food" meant.
    <benja> In Eastern Europe they didn't know what "honest" meant.
    <benja> In Western Europe they didn't know what "shortage" meant.
    <benja> In China they didn't know what "opinion" meant.
    <benja> In the Middle East they didn't know what "solution" meant.
    <benja> In South America they didn't know what "please" meant.
    <benja> And in the USA they didn't know what "the rest of the world" meant
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Cottontop3000 Death Beckoned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    LOL, but probably not far off the mark.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,213
    im american.
    it is right on the money.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. QuarkMoon I Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    773
    Last time I checked the problem wasn't a shortage of food, the problem is getting the food to the people who need it. If we took all the food Americans throw away each year, I'm not talking about consume but just the food we throw away, it would feed a good portion of the world's hungry population.
     
  8. cato less hate, more science Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    nah, the problems is overpopulation of areas with low carrying capacities, and poor infrastructure.
     
  9. QuarkMoon I Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    773

    Poor infrastructure more than overpopulation. Overpopulation is a myth, if it were true than cities like New York would have thousands dieing everyday from famine. But the U.S. has the infrastructure to deal with it, so that even a population of over 8,000,000 in one city isn't a problem.
     
  10. cato less hate, more science Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    right, it is both population size, and infrastructure that make the difference. there are desert nomads that get along fine with little to no infrastructure because their population is so low. if one could quantize infrastructure, you could say that it is a matter of keeping the right population to infrastructure ratio.
     
  11. Mosheh Thezion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,650
    Can You Prove The Needed Email Address For The Un?

    -mt
     
  12. dixonmassey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,151
    Infrastructure assumes that there are areas with high agricultural productivity, developed industrial areas, raw material sources. With current pattern of development, productive agricultural/raw material areas could become a thing of the past very soon. Maintenance of the vast/complicated infrastructure requires lots of raw materials and labor. And what is purpose of all of that waste? People being kicked out of land and herded in cities and burbs with all those exciting burger flipping opportunities. What for? To squander resources faster and accelerate the final showdown?
     
  13. cato less hate, more science Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    infrastructure is good. it means that we don't all have to be farmers. we can all work in specialized areas. why the hell would we all want to be farmers? that sounds like hell to me. not to mention the fact that if we didn't have a infrastructure to support specialization, that we would not have a healthcare system, public education, sewage treatment, ect. I could go on with that list for a while, but I may as well just tell you. having no infrastructure would make our world like the dark ages, but with more people.
     
  14. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,213
    the population would drop dramatically within 1 year.
    60 to 70 percent, i would guess.
     
  15. android nothing human inside Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,104
    Yes, if said food didn't rot in transit.

    There's too many people. The great die-off is our only hope.
     
  16. Cottontop3000 Death Beckoned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    Who was it that said "Any nation is only 3 meals away from revolution."? Or something to that effect.
     
  17. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    Here in America, we know all about the rest of the world. We just don't give a crap.
     
  18. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    Yeah, we can tell...
     
  19. OliverJ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    349
    Hey Guthrie, you just want us to whip out our wallets and throw some more money at your bleeding heart ? Or maybe you want us to bring the food, cook and serve everyone too ? Tell me what should we do to stop your bleeding heart. I know you must be in great misery for us allowing the rest of the world starve. Please tell us Americans what to do ! And what do you do guthrie.... maybe we can learn from you. How much of your money feeds the worlds poor. Or when does your mission depart to freakin Ethopia ? Maybe I can catch a flight and meet you there ! Yeah thats it! We can bake sand bread for all to enjoy ! Yummy!
     
  20. cato less hate, more science Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    that is BS, don't put words in the mouths of Americans. the only thing you can say is that we don't have the will to construct legislation that puts other countries before ours. anything more than that is essentially slander.

    just because its cool to hate America, it gives you no right to construct half truths and whole lies about what Americans think.
     
  21. QuarkMoon I Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    773
    Um, no. The people who need the food aren't getting it, plain and simple. We are nowhere near overpopulation, to even suggest such a thing is arrogant. We need better infrastructure to handle the growing population, it's purely our fault for not adapting. Don't try and cop out by claiming it's because of overpopulation.
     
  22. QuarkMoon I Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    773

    Speak for yourself. I care greatly, a prosperous world equals a prosperous America.
     
  23. dixonmassey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,151
    Well, as far as I know, separation of people with land was far from voluntary.
    In the USA (circa 1820) most people wanted to own/work land, seeing it as more indepenent way to live than wage slavery. Combination of various economic and not so economic forces kick most people out to "specialize" in lots of nonessential and dead end city jobs. They were replaced by tractors, fertilizers, poisons, and waste on the gigantic scale.

    It would be dandy, but modern agriculture is killing land. That is high price to pay for the increased profits for the few and garbage, tasteless, poisonous food for the rest of us. Given a choice between burger flipping and farming (provided it will pay reasonable wage), lots of folks would choose farming. Unfortunately, in the free market system people cannot compete with machines and mass production. Thus, small scale farming is not viable economically. Free market is God, even if it's killing itself. However, small scale farming is the most sustainable and productive kind of farming. Today, there is not freaking way to buy locally grown produce in majority of urban areas. It's cheaper to bring it from far away (green onions from Belgium, fuck it, it's just insane).

    You see the sequence: labor is expensive, let's buy machines and poisons, kick labor out to specialize in dead end/non essential/exuberrant city jobs, mass produce food of questionable quality etc, create massive distribution network, burn billions of tonnes of fuel to deliver it, kill land gradually. And what for? Progress? Hell no!!! It's not progress, it's insanity for the sake of few extra bucks for the owners of life.

    There is such a thing in corporate world as externalization - "The offsetting of costs onto society at large". Destruction of small scale farming by corporations and large farms is a classical example of it. It seems that mass production of food is such a good deal... until all costs are considered.

    There are different kinds of speciallizations. Specialization in something that is essential for societary development and specialization in pet shit scooping, burger flipping, marketing worthless shit, etc..... Just think, many "specialized" truck drivers delivering garbage foods from far away (and killing themselves directly and indirectly in the process), many food distribution center's workers, etc. were farmers (modern ones, but still). They quit farming not voluntarily. They could not compete economically. They could not compete because larger corporations and farms can externalize their costs on the society as a whole (and future generations too).

    The point is - many folks would choose to farm if it was economically viable. Semi-subsistance farming gives greater illusion of independence/ greater sense of being in control of one's life than wage slavery.

    The point is - lots of specializations are non essential for civilization as whole. One does not need to bring lettuce from California, apples from Washington, destroy local farms, poison hell out of land, build monstrous distribution centers, etc. to have a healthcare, education, etc. Those things exists not for specialization but for profit maximization, which is possible because large businesses can externalize their costs on society as whole and future generations.
     

Share This Page